North Indian Inscriptions
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI
top-stroke are triangular, J, n, ś and s are engraved in their antique forms ; ch shows its loop triangular, and the formation of dh is like that of v. The subscript ṇ resembles l, and r is in a transitional stage, showing both its forms ─ with and without the loop.
The language is Sanskrit and all the inscriptions are in prose. Orthographically, there is nothing worth noting except that the medial ē is denoted both by the pṛishṭha- and ūrdhvamātrās and the consonant following r is generally doubled.
The object of all these inscriptions is to record that the temple kīrttana, evidently the one where they were found, was erected by Dēvalabdhi of the Chandēlla family, who was a son of Kṛishṇapa and lady Āsarvvā, and a grandson of the Mahārājādhirāja, the illustrious Yaśōvarman. The first three of the inscriptions (A-C) give this information completely ; D states the same but omits the name of the grandfather Yaśōvarman with his epithets ; and E and F, both of which consist of one line each, mention only the name Dēvalabdhi, the former of these adding that it is his (built by him) temple.
Yasovarman, the grandfather of Dēvalabdhi, as we are informed here, was undoubtedly the Chandēlla king of the same name, whose long inscription of V.S. 1011, i.e., 954 A.C. has been edited above. We have been that his son Dhaṅga had succeeded to the Chandēlla throne shortly before this date ; and from the present records we know that Dēvalabdhi, who was Kṛishṇapa’s son and thus a nephew of Dhaṅga, was in those days guarding the western frontiers of the Chandēlla dominions, as his subordinate, when the boundaries of his kingdom are known to have extended up to the Bētwā river in the west. The necessity of appointing an officer in that region may have been particularly felt in apprehension of an attack by an enemical power from the west.
Kṛishṇapa of the present records is no doubt the same as Kanhapa, mentioned in ll. 8-10 of a fragmentary stone inscription found at Jhānsī and now preserved in the Provincial Museum at Lucknow (E’ 24 of the Museum Catalogue). This record is not included here as it is in a very bad state of preservation and nothing but mere names of some of the rulers can be read in some of the lines. But what is absolutely certain is that it refers to Kanhapa as a nṛipa, unlike the present inscription ; and from what is stated in this connection, he seems also to have founded a city which was his capital (rājadhānī). Whether be actually ruled cannot be said with certainly since the use of the word nṛipa can be justified even by concluding that he held a command under his father or his brother, who were Yaśōvarman and Dhaṅga, respectively. Here it is noteworthy that he is called a nṛipe in another fragmentary inscription also, which was found by Hall at Vidishā (Bhilsā) in the last century.
Since Dudāhī, the find-spot of the present inscription is only about 120 kms. north by east of Vidishā, the situated of both these places in the same region corroborates the statement of Yaśōvarman’s inscription of V. 1011, viz., that the Chandēlla kingdom in those days extended in the west so far as Vētravatī which flows by the town.
While editing these inscriptions in the Indian Antiquary, Kielhorn has observed that they
furnish an older form of the name of the royal family, i.e., Chandrēlla, instead of the later Chandēlla. The former of these names he takes to be a derivative, by means of the Prakrit suffix illa, from chandra, ‘the moon’, formed like Bhāilla from bhās. But the subjoined transcripts
clearly indicate that the word is spelt in all of them without the subscript r, excepting in only
one (B), where too the reading is doubtful. Thus this slender evidence precludes the possibility of
drawing any conclusive with reference to the older form of the name, as done by Kielhorn,
particularly bearing in mind that the inscriptions were engraved by different hands, as is clear
from a look at the plate.
 No. 98, Another Yaśōvarman is mentioned in the Baṭēśvara stone inscription of Paramardin of the
Vikrama year 1252, as the latter’s father. But his name figures in no other record of the house, and
whether he actually ruled in doubtful, as we shall see below, while editing that inscription. The
palaeographic evidence too points to an earlier ruler.